from 25 June to 24 October 1991. The complainants alleged that they were hired bySan Miguel Corporation (SMC) through its agent or intermediary Maerc IntegratedServices, Inc. (MAERC) to work in two (2) designated workplaces in Mandaue City: one,inside the SMC premises at the Mandaue Container Services, and another, in thePhilphos Warehouse owned by MAERC. They washed and segregated various kinds ofempty bottles used by SMC to sell and distribute its beer beverages to the consumingpublic. They were paid on a per piece or pakiao basis except for a few who worked ascheckers and were paid on daily wage basis.Complainants alleged that long before SMC contracted the services of MAERC amajority of them had already been working for SMC under the guise of being employeesof another contractor, Jopard Services, until the services of the latter were terminatedon 31 January 1988.SMC denied liability for the claims and averred that the complainants were not itsemployees but of MAERC, an independent contractor whose primary corporate purposewas to engage in the business of cleaning, receiving, sorting, classifying, etc., glass andmetal containers.It appears that SMC entered into a Contract of Services with MAERC engaging itsservices on a non-exclusive basis for one (1) year beginning 1 February 1988. Thecontract was renewed for two (2) more years in March 1989. It also provided for itsautomatic renewal on a month-to-month basis after the two (2)-year period and requiredthat a written notice to the other party be given thirty (30) days prior to the intended dateof termination, should a party decide to discontinue with the contract.In a letter dated 15 May 1991, SMC informed MAERC of the termination of their servicecontract by the end of June 1991. SMC cited its plans to phase out its segregationactivities starting 1 June 1991 due to the installation of labor and cost-saving devices.When the service contract was terminated, complainants claimed that SMC stoppedthem from performing their jobs; that this was tantamount to their being illegallydismissed by SMC who was their real employer as their activities were directly related,necessary and desirable to the main business of SMC; and, that MAERC was merelymade a tool or a shield by SMC to avoid its liability under the Labor Code.MAERC for its part admitted that it recruited the complainants and placed them in thebottle segregation project of SMC but maintained that it was only conveniently used bySMC as an intermediary in operating the project or work directly related to the primarybusiness concern of the latter with the end in view of avoiding its obligations andresponsibilities towards the complaining workers.The nine (9) cases1 were consolidated. On 31 January 1995 the Labor Arbiter rendereda decision holding that MAERC was an independent contractor.2 He dismissed thecomplaints for illegal dismissal but ordered MAERC to pay complainants' separationbenefits in the total amount of P2,334,150.00. MAERC and SMC were also ordered to

jointly and severally pay complainants their wage differentials in the amount ofP845,117.00 and to pay attorney's fees in the amount of P317,926.70.The complainants appealed the Labor Arbiter's finding that MAERC was an independentcontractor and solely liable to pay the amount representing the separation benefits tothe exclusion of SMC, as well as the Labor Arbiter's failure to grant the Temporary LivingAllowance of the complainants. SMC appealed the award of attorney's fees.The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in its 7 January 1997 decisionthat MAERC was a labor-only contractor and that complainants were employees ofSMC.3 The NLRC also held that whether MAERC was a job contractor or a labor-onlycontractor, SMC was still solidarily liable with MAERC for the latter's unpaid obligations,citing Art. 1094 of the Labor Code. Thus, the NLRC modified the judgment of the LaborArbiter and held SMC jointly and severally liable with MAERC for complainants'separation benefits. In addition, both respondents were ordered to pay jointly andseverally an indemnity fee of P2,000.00 to each complainant.SMC moved for a reconsideration which resulted in the reduction of the award ofattorney's fees from P317,926.70 to P84,511.70. The rest of the assailed decision wasunchanged.5On 12 March 1998, SMC filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of atemporary restraining order and/or injunction with this Court which then referred thepetition to the Court of Appeals.On 28 April 2000 the Court of Appeals denied the petition and affirmed the decision ofthe NLRC.6 The appellate court also denied SMC's motion for reconsideration in aresolution7 dated 26 July 2000. Hence, petitioner seeks a review of the Court ofAppeals' judgment before this Court.Petitioner poses the same issues brought up in the appeals court and the pivotalquestion is whether the complainants are employees of petitioner SMC or of respondentMAERC.Relying heavily on the factual findings of the Labor Arbiter, petitioner maintained thatMAERC was a legitimate job contractor. It directed this Court's attention to theundisputed evidence it claimed to establish this assertion: MAERC is a duly organizedstock corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in the business of cleaning,receiving, sorting, classifying, grouping, sanitizing, packing, delivering, warehousing,trucking and shipping any glass and/or metal containers and that it had listed in itsgeneral information sheet two hundred seventy-eight (278) workers, twenty-two (22)supervisors, seven (7) managers/officers and a board of directors; it also voluntarilyentered into a service contract on a non-exclusive basis with petitioner from which itearned a gross income of P42,110,568.24 from 17 October 1988 to 27 November 1991;the service contract specified that MAERC had the selection, engagement anddischarge of its personnel, employees or agents or otherwise in the direction and control

thereof; MAERC admitted that it had machinery, equipment and fixed assets used in itsbusiness valued at P4,608,080.00; and, it failed to appeal the Labor Arbiter's decisionwhich declared it to be an independent contractor and ordered it to solely pay theseparation benefits of the complaining workers.We find no basis to overturn the Court of Appeals and the NLRC. Well-established is theprinciple that findings of fact of quasi-judicial bodies, like the NLRC, are accorded withrespect, even finality, if supported by substantial evidence. 8 Particularly when passedupon and upheld by the Court of Appeals, they are binding and conclusive upon theSupreme Court and will not normally be disturbed. 9This Court has invariably held that in ascertaining an employer-employee relationship,the following factors are considered: (a) the selection and engagement of employee; (b)the payment of wages; (c) the power of dismissal; and, (d) the power to control anemployee's conduct, the last being the most important. 10 Application of the aforesaidcriteria clearly indicates an employer-employee relationship between petitioner and thecomplainants.Evidence discloses that petitioner played a large and indispensable part in the hiring ofMAERC's workers. It also appears that majority of the complainants had already beenworking for SMC long before the signing of the service contract between SMC andMAERC in 1988.The incorporators of MAERC admitted having supplied and recruited workers for SMCeven before MAERC was created.11 The NLRC also found that when MAERC wasorganized into a corporation in February 1988, the complainants who were then alreadyworking for SMC were made to go through the motion of applying for work with Ms.Olga Ouano, President and General Manager of MAERC, upon the instruction of SMCthrough its supervisors to make it appear that complainants were hired by MAERC. Thiswas testified to by two (2) of the workers who were segregator and forklift operatorassigned to the Beer Marketing Division at the SMC compound and who had beenworking with SMC under a purported contractor Jopard Services since March 1979 andMarch 1981, respectively. Both witnesses also testified that together with othercomplainants they continued working for SMC without break from Jopard Services toMAERC.As for the payment of workers' wages, it is conceded that MAERC was paid in lumpsum but records suggest that the remuneration was not computed merely according tothe result or the volume of work performed. The memoranda of the labor rates bearingthe signature of a Vice-President and General Manager for the Vismin BeerOperations12 as well as a director of SMC13 appended to the contract of service revealthat SMC assumed the responsibility of paying for the mandated overtime, holiday andrest day pays of the MAERC workers.14 SMC also paid the employer's share of the SSSand Medicare contributions, the 13th month pay, incentive leave pay and maternitybenefits.15 In the lump sum received, MAERC earned a marginal amount representing

the contractor's share. These lend credence to the complaining workers' assertion thatwhile MAERC paid the wages of the complainants, it merely acted as an agent of SMC.Petitioner insists that the most significant determinant of an employer-employeerelationship, i.e., the right to control, is absent. The contract of services betweenMAERC and SMC provided that MAERC was an independent contractor and that theworkers hired by it "shall not, in any manner and under any circumstances, beconsidered employees of the Company, and that the Company has no control orsupervision whatsoever over the conduct of the Contractor or any of its workers inrespect to how they accomplish their work or perform the Contractor's obligations underthe Contract."16In deciding the question of control, the language of the contract is not determinative ofthe parties' relationship; rather, it is the totality of the facts and surroundingcircumstances of each case.17Despite SMCs disclaimer, there are indicia that it actively supervised the complainants.SMC maintained a constant presence in the workplace through its own checkers. Itsasseveration that the checkers were there only to check the end result was belied bythe testimony of Carlito R. Singson, head of the Mandaue Container Service of SMC,that the checkers were also tasked to report on the identity of the workers whoseperformance or quality of work was not according to the rules and standards set bySMC. According to Singson, "it (was) necessary to identify the names of thoseconcerned so that the management [referring to MAERC] could call the attention tomake these people improve the quality of work." 18Viewed alongside the findings of the Labor Arbiter that the MAERC organizational setup in the bottle segregation project was such that the segregators/cleaners weresupervised by checkers and each checker was also under a supervisor who was in turnunder a field supervisor, the responsibility of watching over the MAERC workers byMAERC personnel became superfluous with the presence of additional checkers fromSMC.Reinforcing the belief that the SMC exerted control over the work performed by thesegregators or cleaners, albeit through the instrumentality of MAERC, were letters bySMC to the MAERC management. These were letters 19 written by a certain Mr. W.Padin20 addressed to the President and General Manager of MAERC as well as to itshead of operations,21 and a third letter22 from Carlito R. Singson also addressed to thePresident and General Manager of MAERC. More than just a mere written report of thenumber of bottles improperly cleaned and/or segregated, the letters named three (3)workers who were responsible for the rejection of several bottles, specified the infractioncommitted in the segregation and cleaning, then recommended the penalty to beimposed. Evidently, these workers were reported by the SMC checkers to the SMCinspector.

While the Labor Arbiter dismissed these letters as merely indicative of the concern inthe end-result of the job contracted by MAERC, we find more credible the contention ofthe complainants that these were manifestations of the right of petitioner to recommenddisciplinary measures over MAERC employees. Although calling the attention of itscontractors as to the quality of their services may reasonably be done by SMC, thereappears to be no need to instruct MAERC as to what disciplinary measures should beimposed on the specific workers who were responsible for rejections of bottles. Thisconduct by SMC representatives went beyond a mere reminder with respect to theimproperly cleaned/segregated bottles or a genuine concern in the outcome of the jobcontracted by MAERC.Control of the premises in which the contractor's work was performed was also viewedas another phase of control over the work, and this strongly tended to disprove theindependence of the contractor. 23 In the case at bar, the bulk of the MAERCsegregation activities was accomplished at the MAERC-owned PHILPHOS warehousebut the building along with the machinery and equipment in the facility was actuallybeing rented by SMC. This is evident from the memoranda of labor rates which includedrates for the use of forklifts and the warehouse at the PHILPHOS area, hence, theNLRC's conclusion that the payment for the rent was cleverly disguised since MAERCwas not in the business of renting warehouses and forklifts. 24Other instances attesting to SMC's supervision of the workers are found in the minutesof the meeting held by the SMC officers on 5 December 1988. Among those mattersdiscussed were the calling of SMC contractors to have workers assigned to segregationto undergo and pass eye examination to be done by SMC EENT company doctor and areview of compensation/incentive system for segregators to improve the segregationactivities.25But the most telling evidence is a letter by Mr. Antonio Ouano, Vice-President ofMAERC dated 27 May 1991 addressed to Francisco Eizmendi, SMC President andChief Executive Officer, asking the latter to reconsider the phasing out of SMC'ssegregation activities in Mandaue City. The letter was not denied but in fact used bySMC to advance its own arguments.26Briefly, the letter exposed the actual state of affairs under which MAERC was formedand engaged to handle the segregation project of SMC. It provided an account of how in1987 Eizmendi approached the would-be incorporators of MAERC and offered them thebusiness of servicing the SMC bottle-washing and segregation department in order toavert an impending labor strike. After initial reservations, MAERC incorporatorsaccepted the offer and before long trial segregation was conducted by SMC at thePHILPHOS warehouse.27The letter also set out the circumstances under which MAERC entered into the Contractof Services in 1988 with the assurances of the SMC President and CEO that theemployment of MAERC's services would be long term to enable it to recover itsinvestments. It was with this understanding that MAERC undertook borrowings from

banking institutions and from affiliate corporations so that it could comply with thedemands of SMC to invest in machinery and facilities.In sum, the letter attested to an arrangement entered into by the two (2) parties whichwas not reflected in the Contract of Services. A peculiar relationship mutually beneficialfor a time but nonetheless ended in dispute when SMC decided to prematurely end thecontract leaving MAERC to shoulder all the obligations to the workers.Petitioner also ascribes as error the failure of the Court of Appeals to apply the ruling inNeri v. NLRC.28 In that case, it was held that the law did not require one to possess bothsubstantial capital and investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery, workpremises, among others, to be considered a job contractor. The second condition toestablish permissible job contracting29 was sufficiently met if one possessed eitherattribute.Accordingly, petitioner alleged that the appellate court and the NLRC erred when theydeclared MAERC a labor-only contractor despite the finding that MAERC hadinvestments amounting to P4,608,080.00 consisting of buildings, machinery andequipment.However, in Vinoya v. NLRC,30 we clarified that it was not enough to show substantialcapitalization or investment in the form of tools, equipment, machinery and workpremises, etc., to be considered an independent contractor. In fact, jurisprudentialholdings were to the effect that in determining the existence of an independentcontractor relationship, several factors may be considered, such as, but not necessarilyconfined to, whether the contractor was carrying on an independent business; thenature and extent of the work; the skill required; the term and duration of therelationship; the right to assign the performance of specified pieces of work; the controland supervision of the workers; the power of the employer with respect to the hiring,firing and payment of the workers of the contractor; the control of the premises; the dutyto supply premises, tools, appliances, materials and labor; and the mode, manner andterms of payment.31In Neri, the Court considered not only the fact that respondent Building CareCorporation (BBC) had substantial capitalization but noted that BCC carried on anindependent business and performed its contract according to its own manner andmethod, free from the control and supervision of its principal in all matters except as tothe results thereof.32 The Court likewise mentioned that the employees of BCC wereengaged to perform specific special services for their principal. 33 The status of BCC hadalso been passed upon by the Court in a previous case where it was found to be aqualified job contractor because it was "a big firm which services among others, auniversity, an international bank, a big local bank, a hospital center, governmentagencies, etc." Furthermore, there were only two (2) complainants in that case whowere not only selected and hired by the contractor before being assigned to work in theCagayan de Oro branch of FEBTC but the Court also found that the contractormaintained effective supervision and control over them.

In comparison, MAERC, as earlier discussed, displayed the characteristics of a laboronly contractor. Moreover, while MAERC's investments in the form of buildings, toolsand equipment amounted to more than P4 Million, we cannot disregard the fact that itwas the SMC which required MAERC to undertake such investments under theunderstanding that the business relationship between petitioner and MAERC would beon a long term basis. Nor do we believe MAERC to have an independent business. Notonly was it set up to specifically meet the pressing needs of SMC which was thenhaving labor problems in its segregation division, none of its workers was also everassigned to any other establishment, thus convincing us that it was created solely toservice the needs of SMC. Naturally, with the severance of relationship betweenMAERC and SMC followed MAERC's cessation of operations, the loss of jobs for thewhole MAERC workforce and the resulting actions instituted by the workers.Petitioner also alleged that the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that "whether MAERC isan independent contractor or a labor-only contractor, SMC is liable with MAERC for thelatter's unpaid obligations to MAERC's workers."On this point, we agree with petitioner as distinctions must be made. In legitimate jobcontracting, the law creates an employer-employee relationship for a limited purpose,i.e., to ensure that the employees are paid their wages. 34 The principal employerbecomes jointly and severally liable with the job contractor only for the payment of theemployees' wages whenever the contractor fails to pay the same. Other than that, theprincipal employer is not responsible for any claim made by the employees.On the other hand, in labor-only contracting, the statute creates an employer-employeerelationship for a comprehensive purpose: to prevent a circumvention of labor laws. Thecontractor is considered merely an agent of the principal employer and the latter isresponsible to the employees of the labor-only contractor as if such employees hadbeen directly employed by the principal employer. The principal employer thereforebecomes solidarily liable with the labor-only contractor for all the rightful claims of theemployees.This distinction between job contractor and labor-only contractor, however, will notdischarge SMC from paying the separation benefits of the workers, inasmuch asMAERC was shown to be a labor-only contractor; in which case, petitioner's liability isthat of a direct employer and thus solidarily liable with MAERC.SMC also failed to comply with the requirement of written notice to both the employeesconcerned and the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) which must be givenat least one (1) month before the intended date of retrenchment. 35 The fines imposed forviolations of the notice requirement have varied. 36 The measure of this award dependson the facts of each case and the gravity of the omission committed by the employer.37For its failure, petitioner was justly ordered to indemnify each displaced workerP2,000.00.

The NLRC and the Court of Appeals affirmed the Labor Arbiter's award of separationpay to the complainants in the total amount of P2,334,150.00 and of wage differentialsin the total amount of P845,117.00. These amounts are the aggregate of the awardsdue the two hundred ninety-one (291) complainants as computed by the Labor Arbiter.The following is a summary of the computation of the benefits due the complainantswhich is part of the Decision of the Labor Arbiter.SUMMARYNAMESALARYSEPARATIONDIFFERENTIALPAY

TOTAL

Case No. 06-1165-9

1 Rogelio Prado, Jr.

P3,056.00

P8,190.00

P11,246.00

2 Eddie Selle

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

3 AlejandroAnnabieza

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

4 Ananias Jumao-as

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

5 ConsorcioManloloyo

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

6 Anananias Alcotin

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

7 Rey Gestopa

2,865.00

8,190.00

11,055.00

8 Edgardo Nuez

2,865.00

8,190.00

11,055.00

9 Junel Cabatingan

2,865.00

8,190.00

11,055.00

10 Paul Dumaqueta

2,865.00

8,190.00

11,055.00

11 Felimon Echavez

2,843.00

8,190.00

10,673.00

12 Vito Sealana

2,843.00

8,190.00

10,673.00

13 Denecia Palao

2,843.00

8,190.00

10,673.00

14 Roberto Lapiz

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

15 Baltazar Labio

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

16 Leonardo Bongo

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

17 El Cid Icalina

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

18 Jose Diocampo

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

19 Adelo Cantillas

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

20 Isaias Branzuela

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

21 Ramon Rosales

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

22 Gaudencio Peson

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

23 Hector Cabaog

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

24 Edgardo Dagmayan

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

25 Rogelio Cruz

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

26 Rolando Espina

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

27 Bernardino Regidor

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

28 Arnelio Sumalinog

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

29 GumersindoAlcontin

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

30 Loreto Nuez

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

31 Joebe Boy Dayon

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

32 Conrado Mesanque

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

33 Marcelo Pescador

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

34 Marcelino Jabagat

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

35 Vicente Devilleres

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

36 Vicente Alin

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

37 Rodolfo Pahugot

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

38 Ruel Navares

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

39 Danilo Anabieza

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

40 Alex Juen

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

41 Juanito Garces

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

42 Silvino Limbaga

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

43 Aurelio Jurpacio

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

44 Jovito Loon

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

45 Victor Tenedero

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

46 Sasing Moreno

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

47 Wilfredo Hortezuela

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

48 Joselito Melendez

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

49 Alfredo Gestopa

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

50 Regino Gabuya

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

51 Jorge Gamuzarno

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

52 Lolito Cocido

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

53 Efraim Yubal

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

54 Venerando Roamar

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

55 Gerardo Butalid

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

56 Hipolito Vidas

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

57 Vengelito Frias

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

58 Vicente Celacio

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

59 Corlito Pestaas

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

60 Ervin Hyrosa

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

61 Rommel Guerero

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

62 Rodrigo Enerlas

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

63 FranciscoCarbonilla

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

64 Nicanor Cuizon

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

65 Pedro Briones

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

66 Rodolfo Cabalhug

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

67 Teofilo Ricardo

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

68 Danilo R. Dizon

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

69 Alberto Embong

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

70 Alfonso Echavez

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

71 Gonzalo Roracea

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

72 Marcelo Caracina

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

73 Raul Borres

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

74 Lino Tongalamos

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

75 Artemio Bongo, Jr.

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

76 Roy Avila

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

77 Melchor Freglo

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

78 Raul Cabillada

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

79 Eddie Catab

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

80 Melencio Durano

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

81 Allan Rago

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

82 DominadorCaparida

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

83 Jovito Catab

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

84 Albert Laspias

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

85 Alex Anabieza

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

86 Nestor Reynante

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

87 Eulogio Estopa

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

88 Mario Bolo

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

89 Ederlito A.Balocano

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

90 Joel Pepito

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

91 Reynaldo Ludia

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

92 Manuel Cinco

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

93 Allan Agustin

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

94 Pablito Polegrates

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

95 Clyde Prado

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

96 Dindo Misa

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

97 Roger Sasing

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

98 Ramon Arcallana

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

99 Gabriel Salas

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

100 Edwin Sasan

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

101 Diosdado Barriga

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

102 Moises Sasan

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

103 Sinforiano Cantago

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

104 LeonardoMarturillas

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

105 Mario Ranis

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

106 Alejandro Ranido

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

107 Jerome Prado

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

108 Raul Oyao

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

109 Victor Celacio

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

TOTALP330,621.00

P884,520.00 P1,215,141.00

Case No. 07-1177-91

110 Gerardo Roque

P3,056.00

P5,460.00

P8,516.00

P3,056.00

P8,192.00

P11,246.00

P3,056.00

P5,460.00

P8,516.00

113 Jose Zanoria

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

114 Allan Zanoria

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

115 Victorino Seno

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

116 Teodulo Jumao-as

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

117 Alexander Hera

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

118 Anthony Araneta

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

Case No. 07-1176-91

111 Zosimo CararatonCase No. 07-1219-91112 Virgilio Zanoria

119 Aldrin Suson

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

120 Victor Verano

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

121 Ruel Sufrerencia

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

122 Alfred Naparate

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

123 WenceslaoBaclohon

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

124 Eduardo Langita

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

P39,728.00

P76,440.00

P116,168.00

125 Feliz Ordeneza

P2,816.00

P8,190.00

P11,006.00

126 Arsenio Logarta

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

127 Eduardo dela Vega

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

128 Joventino Canoog

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

P11,984.00

P32,760.00

P44,744.00

P3,056.00

P8,190.00

P11,246.00

TOTAL

Case No. 07-1283-91

TOTAL

Case No. 10-1584-91

129 Regelio AbapoCase No. 08-1321-91

130 Ricardo Ramas

P3,056.00

P8,190.00

P11,246.00

P2,816.00

P8,190.00

P11,006.00

132 Antonio Basalan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

133 Lyndon Basalan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

134 Wilfredo Aliviano

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

135 Bienvenido Rosario

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

136 JesusCapangpangan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

137 Renato Mendoza

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

138 AlejandroCatandejan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

139 Ruben Talaba

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

140 Filemon Echavez

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

141 MarcelinoCaracena

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

142 Ignacio Misa

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

Case No. 09-1507-91

131 Jose Bandialan

143 Feliciano Agbay

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

144 Victor Maglasang

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

145 Arturo Heyrosa

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

146 Alipio Tirol

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

147 Rosendo Mondares

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

148 Aniceto Ludia

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

149 ReynaldoLavandero

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

150 Reuyan Herculano

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

151 Teodula Nique

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

P59,136.00

P171,990.00

P231,126.00

P2,816.00

P8,190.00

P11,006.00

153 Zosimo Baobao

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

154 Medardo Singson

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

155 Antonio

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

TOTAL

Case No. 06-1145-91

152 Emerberto Orque

Patalinghug

156 Ernesto Singson

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

157 Roberto Torres

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

158 Cesar Escario

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

159 Leodegario Dollecin

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

160 Alberto Anoba

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

161 Rodrigo Bisnar

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

162 Zosimo Bingas

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

163 Rosalio Duran, Sr.

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

164 Rosalio Duran, Jr.

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

165 Romeo Duran

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

166 Antonio Abella

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

167 Mariano Repollo

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

168 Polegarpo Degamo

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

169 Mario Cereza

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

170 Antonio Laoronilla

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

171 ProctusoMagallanes

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

172 Eladio Torres

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

173 Warlito Demana

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

174 Henry Gedaro

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

175 DoisederioGemperao

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

176 Aniceto Gemperao

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

177 Jerry Caparoso

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

178 Serlito Noynay

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

179 LucianoRecopelacion

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

180 Juanito Garces

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

181 Feliciano Torres

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

182 Ranilo Villareal

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

183 Fermin Aliviano

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

184 Junjie Laviste

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

185 Tomacito de Castro

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

186 Joselito Capilina

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

187 Samuel Casquejo

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

188 Leonardo Natad

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

189 Benjamin Sayson

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

190 Pedro Inoc

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

191 Edward Flores

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

192 Edwin Sasan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

193 Jose Rey Inot

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

194 Edgar Cortes

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

195 Romeo Lombog

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

196 Nicolas Ribo

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

197 Jaime Rubin

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

198 Orlando Regis

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

199 Ricky Alconza

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

200 Rudy Tagalog

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

201 Victorino Tagalog

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

202 Edward Colina

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

203 Ronie Gonzaga

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

204 Paul Cabillada

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

205 Wilfredo Magalona

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

206 Joel Pepito

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

207 ProsperoMaglasang

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

208 Allan Agustin

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

209 Fausto Bargayo

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

210 Nomer Sanchez

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

211 Jolito Alin

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

212 Birning Regidor

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

213 Garry Dignos

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

214 Edwin Dignos

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

215 Dario Dignos

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

216 Rogelio Dignos

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

217 Jimmy Cabigas

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

218 Fernando Anajao

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

219 Alex Flores

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

220 Fernando Remedio

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

221 Toto Mosquido

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

222 Alberto Yagonia

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

223 Victor Bariquit

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

224 Ignacio Misa

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

225 Eliseo Villareno

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

226 Manuel Lavandero

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

227 Vircede

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

228 Mario Ranis

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

229 Jaime Responso

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

230 Marianito Aguirre

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

231 Marcial Heruela

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

232 Godofredo Tuacao

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

233 Perfecto Regis

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

234 Roel Demana

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

235 Elmer Castillo

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

236 WilfredoCalamohoy

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

237 Rudy Lucernas

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

238 Antonio Caete

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

239 Efraim Yubal

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

240 JesusCapangpangan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

241 DamianCapangpangan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

242 TeofiloCapangpangan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

243 Nilo Capangpangan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

244 CororenoCapangpangan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

245 Emilio Mondares

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

246 Ponciano Agana

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

247 Vicente Devilleres

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

248 Mario Alipan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

249 Romanito Alipan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

250 Aldeon Robinson

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

251 Fortunato Soco

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

252 Celso Compuesto

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

253 William Itoralde

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

254 Antonio Pescador

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

255 Jeremias Rondero

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

256 Estropio Punay

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

257 Leovijildo Punay

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

258 RomeoQuilongquilong

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

259 Wilfredo Gestopa

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

260 Eliseo Santos

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

261 Henry Orio

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

262 Jose Yap

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

263 Nicanor Manayaga

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

264 Teodoro Salinas

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

265 Aniceto Montero

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

266 Rafaelito Versoza

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

267 Alejandro Ranido

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

268 Henry Talaba

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

269 Romulo Talaba

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

270 Diosdado Besabela

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

271 Sylvestre Toring

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

272 Edilberto Padilla

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

273 Allan Herosa

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

274 Ernesto Sumalinog

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

275 Ariston Velasco, Jr.

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

276 Fernando Lopez

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

277 Alfonso Echavez

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

278 Nicanor Cuizon

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

279 DominadorCaparida

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

280 Zosimo Cororation

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

281 Artemio Loveranes

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

282 Dionisio Yagonia

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

283 Victor Celocia

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

284 Hipolito Vidas

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

285 Teodoro Arcillas

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

286 Marcelino Habagat

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

287 Gaudioso Labasan

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

288 Leopoldo Regis

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

289 Aquillo Damole

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

290 Willy Roble

2,816.00

8,190.00

11,006.00

TOTALP391,424.00 P1,138,410.00 P1,529,834.00

RECAP

CASE NO.SALARYSEPARATIONDIFFERENTIALPAY

TOTAL

06-1165-91

P330,621.00

07-1177-91

3,056.00

5,460.00

8,516.00

06-1176-91

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

07-1219-91

39,728.00

76,440.00

116,168.00

07-1283-91

11,984.00

32,760.00

44,744.00

10-1584-91

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

08-1321-91

3,056.00

8,190.00

11,246.00

09-1507-91

59,136.00

171,990.00

231,126.00

391,424.00 1,138,410.00

1,529,834.00

06-1145-91

P884,520.00 P1,215,141.00

GRAND TOTALP845,117.00 P2,334,150.00 P3,179,267.00However, certain matters have cropped up which require a review of the awards tosome complainants and a recomputation by the Labor Arbiter of the total amounts.A scrutiny of the enumeration of all the complainants shows that some names 38 appeartwice by virtue of their being included in two (2) of the nine (9) consolidated cases. Acheck of the Labor Arbiter's computation discloses that most of these names wereawarded different amounts of separation pay or wage differential in each separate casewhere they were impleaded as parties because the allegations of the length and periodof their employment for the separate cases, though overlapping, were also different. The

records before us are incomplete and do not aid in verifying whether these namesbelong to the same persons but at least three (3) of those names were found to haveidentical signatures in the complaint forms they filed in the separate cases. It is likelytherefore that the Labor Arbiter erroneously granted some complainants separationbenefits and wage differentials twice. Apart from this, we also discovered some namesthat are almost identical.39 It is possible that the minor variance in the spelling of somenames may have been a typographical error and refer to the same persons although therecords seem to be inconclusive.Furthermore, one of the original complainants 40 was inadvertently omitted by the LaborArbiter from his computations.41 The counsel for the complainants promptly filed amotion for inclusion/correction42 which motion was treated as an appeal of the Decisionas the Labor Arbiter was prohibited by the rules of the NLRC from entertaining anymotion at that stage of the proceedings. 43 The NLRC for its part acknowledged theomission44 but both the Commission and subsequently the Court of Appeals failed torectify the oversight in their decisions.Finally, the NLRC ordered both MAERC and SMC to pay P84,511.70 in attorneys feeswhich is ten percent (10%) of the salary differentials awarded to the complainants inaccordance with Art. 111 of the Labor Code. The Court of Appeals also affirmed theaward. Consequently, with the recomputation of the salary differentials, the award ofattorney's fees must also be modified.WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision of the Court of Appealsdated 28 April 2000 and the Resolution dated 26 July 2000 are AFFIRMED withMODIFICATION. Respondent Maerc Integrated Services, Inc. is declared to be a laboronly contractor. Accordingly, both petitioner San Miguel Corporation and respondentMaerc Integrated Services, Inc., are ordered to jointly and severally pay complainants(private respondents herein) separation benefits and wage differentials as may be finallyrecomputed by the Labor Arbiter as herein directed, plus attorney's fees to be computedon the basis of ten percent (10%) of the amounts which complainants may recoverpursuant to Art. 111 of the Labor Code, as well as an indemnity fee of P2,000.00 to eachcomplainant.The Labor Arbiter is directed to review and recompute the award of separation pays andwage differentials due complainants whose names appear twice or are notably similar,compute the monetary award due to complainant Niel Zanoria whose name was omittedin the Labor Arbiter's Decision and immediately execute the monetary awards as foundin the Labor Arbiter's computations insofar as those complainants whose entitlement toseparation pay and wage differentials and the amounts thereof are no longer inquestion. Costs against petitioner.SO ORDERED.